違反常識的行為守則

I am in breach of my employer’s code of conduct. I have broken it in not one but in four different ways, one of which involved barefaced lying.

我違反了雇主的行為守則。不僅是以一個方式，而是以四個不同方式，其中之一涉及公然撒謊。

The normal thing would be to keep quiet about this, but I am choosing to shop myself, partly because I have reason to believe I am in good company but also because the real wrongdoing was not done by me, but by the codes themselves — which breach the principles of common sense, human motivation, and snappy writing.

正常做法是對此保持沉默，但我選擇“出賣”自己，部分原因是我有理由相信，跟我處境相同的人很多，但也是因為真正過錯并不在我，而在于守則本身違反了常識、人類動機(jī)和簡潔明快寫作的原則。

Codes of conduct are scary things. Charlotte Hogg, who helped write the Bank of England’s code and who is also an adviser to my charity, still managed to get tripped up by it and this month had to resign as deputy governor. Seeing what happened to her, I decided to do something I had never done before: settle down to read my own.

行為守則是可怕之物。夏洛特•霍格(Charlotte Hogg)曾幫助英國央行(BoE)起草行為守則，目前也是我的慈善機(jī)構(gòu)的顧問?？伤栽谛袨闇?zhǔn)則方面跌了跟頭，被迫于本月辭任英國央行副行長?？吹搅税l(fā)生在她身上的事之后，我決定做一件過去從未做過的事情：安靜下來讀一讀自己要遵守的行為守則。

The first thing the Financial Times’ corporate code of conduct demands is that employees “act in a professional, honest and ethical manner” — which is fine, if a little general. But by the second bullet point I had already come a cropper: “Be familiar with the information contained in this code,” it orders. In my defence I have tried to read it on various occasions in past years but I am a slow reader and nine pages of dull text is a bit much.

英國《金融時報》的企業(yè)行為守則的第一條，是要求員工“以專業(yè)、誠實和道德的方式行事”——這是不錯的，只是籠統(tǒng)了一點兒。但在第二個要點上，我已經(jīng)遭到慘敗;它命令道：“熟悉本守則所含信息。”我得為自己辯護(hù)一下，過去幾年我曾多次嘗試閱讀該守則，但我讀得慢，而9頁的枯燥文字讓我覺得有點兒多。

This does not make me an outlier. It makes me just like most humans, who are not naturally drawn to the small print on health and safety policies.

這不會使我成為外人。它使我就像大多數(shù)人類一樣——在自然情況下，他們不會對健康與安全政策的細(xì)節(jié)感興趣。

In the past week I have asked everyone I have met if they have read their employers’ codes of conduct. The majority either said no or looked sheepish and said they had skimmed it. Some claimed to have read theirs, but when asked what it contained could do no better than: “Oh you know, the usual stuff.”

過去一周里，我詢問了遇到的所有人，是否閱讀了各自雇主的行為守則。大多數(shù)人不是回答沒有，就是神情羞怯，說自己瀏覽過了。有些人聲稱閱讀過，但在被問到里面包含什么內(nèi)容時，只能回答：“哦，你知道的，通常的那類東西”。

This means every year, millions of wage slaves — including me — commit another violation and perjure themselves by ticking a box claiming to have read, understood and committed to complying with the code, when they have done nothing of the sort.

這意味著，包括我在內(nèi)的數(shù)以百萬計的工資奴隸每年都觸犯了另一項規(guī)定，在一個方格內(nèi)打勾、宣稱自己已閱讀、理解并致力于遵守行為守則——其實他們根本沒有做。

The next breach concerns my obligation to report any colleague who is not following the code. I know for a fact that a certain FT journalist has not read it properly either, in which case I am again at fault for not shopping him.

下一個違反規(guī)定涉及我的一項義務(wù)：舉報任何未遵守守則的同事。我確實知道某位FT記者也沒有認(rèn)真閱讀行為守則，而我犯下了沒有出賣他的過錯。

But to grass up a person for something so tiny would interfere with my own ethical principle of not sneaking on a friend, especially one who is a fine, upstanding journalist. So what should I do? On this, as on every tricky, real-life dilemma, a code of conduct is of no help at all.

但是，為了如此微不足道的事兒而舉報一個人，違反我自己的道德原則——不告發(fā)朋友、尤其是一位能干正直的記者。那我該怎么做?在這一點上，就像每一個棘手的、現(xiàn)實生活中的困境一樣，行為守則絲毫沒有幫助。

As for the rest of the code, it is perfectly sensible in a general sort of way. Alas I fear the state of my desk may not be 100 per cent compliant with fire regulations, and I see I have an obligation “to read, understand and abide by our Treasury Policy, Travel and Expenses Policy and Data Retention and Destruction Policy” — which saps the spirits no end.

行為守則的其他內(nèi)容籠統(tǒng)地說是完全明智的。唉，我擔(dān)心我的辦公桌狀況或許并非100%符合消防規(guī)定，我看到我有義務(wù)“閱讀、理解并遵守我們的財務(wù)政策、差旅費用政策以及數(shù)據(jù)保留與銷毀政策”——這有點沒完沒了。

Yet by comparison to most other codes, the FT’s is a work of brevity and precision. At my alma mater, JPMorgan, the new code runs to 50 pages, beginning with a picture of Jamie Dimon smiling angelically and staring into the middle distance. There are further pictures of happy women and black people, as well as one of employees throwing buckets of water over each others’ heads. How the latter relates to the commandment that all JPMorgan staff treat each other with dignity, it does not say. The report is an interminable mish-mash of important things and trivial ones — of strict regulations on money laundering and vague waffle about being a good global citizen. Which is nonsensical in a code of conduct. What does it mean? And what business is it of the bank’s?

然而，與其他多數(shù)公司相比，英國《金融時報》的行為守則堪稱簡潔和精確的典范。在我的老東家摩根大通(JPMorgan)，新版行為守則長達(dá)50頁，起始頁是杰米•戴蒙(Jamie Dimon)的一張照片，他天使般微笑著，注視著不遠(yuǎn)處。內(nèi)頁還有其他照片：一些開心的女性和黑人，還有一名員工往其他人頭上倒整桶水——不明白這與摩根大通的所有員工應(yīng)該尊嚴(yán)對待彼此的戒律如何相容。這份守則是一份同時含有重要事項和瑣碎事項的冗長清單：既有關(guān)于洗錢的嚴(yán)格規(guī)定，也有做良好全球公民的泛泛而談;把后者放在行為守則中是荒謬的。它的涵義是什么?它跟銀行業(yè)務(wù)有什么關(guān)系?

I would rather a code that came without the pictures, the values and the cloying letter from the chief executive, but with a simple list of clear commandments. A reasonable start might be: Don’t do anything illegal. Don’t do anything that fails the Private Eye test — would it look ugly if published in the satirical magazine? Don’t do anything that you would be ashamed to tell your colleagues about.

我寧愿看到一份沒有照片、價值觀和令人膩煩的首席執(zhí)行官信件、但有一個包含清晰戒律的簡要清單的行為守則。合理的開篇也許是這樣：不要做任何違法之事。不要做經(jīng)不起《Private Eye》考驗的任何事——如果這件事被公布在這本諷刺雜志上，會難看嗎?不要做你羞于告訴同事的任何事。

The trouble with this is that it misses what a code of conduct is really for — part PR exercise, part excuse for firing anyone who a manager deems to have violated it. Sometimes, as the Bank of England has found out, the trap catches the wrong person.

這樣做的麻煩在于，它失去了行為守則的真正目的——部分是公關(guān)努力，部分是被經(jīng)理用作炒掉某人的借口。正如英國央行所發(fā)現(xiàn)的，有時陷阱會逮住不該被抓的人。